13/12/2016
Psychology behind Conflicts (written by Prof. Dr. Peter Fischer- Consensus)
The Organizational Psychology Deals with the experience and behavior of individuals and groups in organisational contexts. An important research and scope is the management of conflicts within and between groups that find in many organizations (e.g. over powers within and between departments, clashes between works council and senior management roles conflicts, mergers or restructuring of companies). Depending on the escalation glasl ethos where (2002) recommends the use of mediators, of which, for a successful resolution calling for a wide range of skills (e.g. legal, technical and psychological knowledge). A crucial first step in the context of a mediation process is the analysis of the interests and motives of the parties to the dispute, in part, "the hidden and the parties are fully aware" (Auhagen & Bierhoff, 2003, p. 142). For the understanding and comprehensible such of conscious and unconscious groups dynamic drivers is the knowledge of groups psychological phenomena: mediators must, therefore, experts in the " Psychology of the group. The only way we can promote conflict thinking and behaviour, explain and change - a prerequisite for sustainable mediation process.
Definition and stages
As a group will be a majority of people described, the relatively on time in direct interaction with each other and through rolls differentiation, common standards and events we are feeling characterized (Rosenstiel, 2005). As the threshold shall be valid for three people, as we are only here groups psychological Processes such as majority coalition, or maximum 15-30 persons. Otherwise, there will be no direct interaction. The life cycle of groups of tuckman (1965) in four stages: forming (getting to know the group members), seven years before high school (and struggle for status within the group), norming (development of rules of cooperation), performing (Willingness to deal with From external tasks). This model was later added a fifth stage of the process, especially when working temporarily groups such as project teams describes (adjourning). Staff changes through restructuring and is constantly working together in groups to repeated through these phases, what especially in the high school phase of power struggles and tasks and roles conflicts can be. For a mediator, it is crucial to know in which of the above-mentioned stages a groups conflict occurs, as this may be a productive conflict as part of the teach and therefore is not necessarily "need medical attention". conflicts at other times, however, it is important The most basic groups, psychological phenomena, but the v.a. unconsciously ending expose group processes, explain, changing and effectively solve.
Groupthink
Under Groupthink (Groupthink) means "think mode", among other things is characterized by the illusion of integrity (unrealistic optimism), of collective rationalization (supposed reasons) of believe in moral justification, devaluation of outsider, peer pressure against inconsistent arguments, self-censorship And overestimate the unanimity of the group (Janis, 1972). It is obvious that conflicts with a recipe for such groups and very difficult to solve, there are often groupthink leads to erroneous decisions, then also glossed over. This " think mode " groups are mainly concerned with high group cohesion (high cohesion and high level of attractiveness of the group), high groups isolation (isolation and " protection " alternative viewpoints) and high able (impression of the threat of the group). In the framework of company acquisitions or restructuring it seems hardly surprising that different groups of people (e.g. departments, board) feel a threat and remaining in the "threat" group as a particularly desirable to experienced and groupthink. For a mediator, it is therefore crucial to recognize such thinking (e.g. based on statements and "beliefs" of the group members) and the group members. This can be the mediator, for example, the group discussions in subtypes, opinions anonymously written down or a party member to specify the role of the " Devil's advocate " (selection a group member that has a negative attitude and thus the other group members in support of " Beliefs and practices), motivated groups inconsistent opinions, the individual may be aware, but not be uttered, space to offer. The realization that some assumptions about 'the other' is probably not true and not all decisions that were best, can make a constructive dialogue and compromise ultimately prevail between the parties to the conflict.
Social identity
The Theory of social identity emerged (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) to the phenomenon of discrimination between different groups and the related psychological processes to better understand. People from group guided self-esteem, which is why they tend to their own group (Ingroup) and outgroup (out group) systematic devaluation and with you). Groups are "naturally" endeavour to positive by other groups. Crossing this group from time to time limits (e.g. rumors spread, successes of other sabotage), how to get it from the respective individual not really expect it. The Social Identity Theory explains such destructive and with the standards of the respective individual behaviour of the fact that people in groups is not in a I-Mode (Personal Identity), but in a we-Mode (social identity). This may be an increased compliance with standards of groups, easing restrictions on normal behaviour, reduced sense of responsibility and more impulsive, standard deviant behavior of the individual. In conflict situations these mechanisms can strengthen and accelerate a mediator, the parties should therefore first show and to make them understand, in order to avoid further escalation. For a sustained successful mediation process it is also crucial that the result of the mediation a positive self-esteem for the individual as a member of the group permits (win-win solution). This is mainly for the success of takeovers or Mergers with other organisations is crucial.
Exchange of information and decisions
Decision-making processes at group can in addition to various "Informationalen distortions" subject to erroneous or extreme choices lead. Such a distortion is the so-called hidden profiles situation which describes the following phenomenon: individual group members have exclusive information (i.e. information that only you know who are) for the solution of a problem or meet a "right" decision are relevant Share this but not with the other members. Instead, they express to the information already several respectively. All group members. Hide behind this phenomenon among the overestimation of information known collectively as well as the pursuit of consensus.
Furthermore, it appears in group situations that obviously wrong judgments of the majority of the judgement of the individual (the better know it actually might influence against better knowledge, go with the groups and individuals, to the judgment of others, and liked to be accepted (normative social influence ). This phenomenon has been impressive in the so-called "Lines-experiments" (Al, 1956) demonstrated. In the process of the participants had the simple task, in a group to assess which of three guidelines indicated most identified a single line. The correct answer was apparent, i.e. two of the three comparison lines had obviously not the same length as the reference line, while the length of a third line obviously the line. In several passages, they each had to give your opinion its population, with a large proportion of the population in reality helpers were inaugurated in several passages of the series after obviously wrong answer. The actual subject was now faced with a dilemma: should it be the correct line clearly identify and to the rest of the group, or should you do with the groups of judgment and the obvious wrong answer? The results of this study showed a surprisingly high level of conformity; only 24 % of the population went to a total of twelve passages do not agree with the obviously false groups opinion.
Another group dynamic phenomenon (group polarization) shows that results from groups decisions often extreme than those of individuals, because the outcome will be group discussions of the opinions of members stepped up. This applies to both the original tendency e.g. risk (as shift), as well as the original such tendency to avoid risk (cautious shift). All these phenomena clearly show how much the exchange of information and the decisions we take dynamic groups can be influenced. For a mediator is the knowledge of these mechanisms is highly important, as in case of conflict and lead to faster solutions too often individuals for errors (e.g. contracts or project pipelines) will be held accountable ("scapegoat"), with this groups actually products are dynamic processes. A Mediator the group members should these mechanisms, by the actual roots of conflict or From mistakes and behavior.
